Slashdot Mirror

3) There is nothing wrong with hinting you are willing to sell. I'm willing to sell my home for enough money and I still live here. If someone wants to pay me 130% or market (not even an insane amount) I'm out tomorrow. The fact that I would sell for over market doesn't indicate bad faith which is the other thing that needs to be proven.

Hold your horses. Hinting that you're willing to sell is probably the worst possible thing you can do if a trademark owner is trying to take your domain away from you. From ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, the first example of a bad faith registration is: " circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name."

Never signal that you're willing to sell, even as a joke. The domain is your baby, and you want it forever. If they offer an amount you're willing to sell for, then take it. But never admit before then that a certain amount would get you to change your mind. When Nissan (the car company) tried to take nissan.com from Uzi Nissan (the computer store owner) who had registered the domain long before Datsun ever began using their Nissan trademark in the U.S., they asked him how much it would take for him to sell. He replied, "A million dollars. Why can't you understand I'm not going to sell." Basically he pulled a Dr. Evil. Back when the phrase "a million dollars" was first coined and the average person made a few dollars a week, it meant a ridiculously huge sum of money. But today it's not that much money.

Nissan's lawyers immediately took the first half of his statement, snipped out the context in the second half, and presented it to ICANN as evidence he was squatting the domain to extort money from the trademark owner. ICANN then decided to take the domain away from him and put it in escrow until the dispute was resolved (eventually in Uzi Nissan's favor years later, though he lost millions because he wasn't awarded legal fees). If he hadn't used that particular phrase, he might have been able to continue using the domain throughout the legal proceedings.

Read up on the UNDRP if this is something you're really worried about.

There is also this case: Nissan Motor vs Nissan Computer. http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php

Domain names are extremely similar to company names. There already exists legal precedent to consider your company name the legal property of the company.

For example: that large company up in Redmond is called Microsoft. Some guy named John Microsoft brings them to court, claiming that he has the legal right to the company name of "Microsoft", since it is his legal name. The courts would disagree, and rule that the name "Microsoft" belongs to Bill Gates & co.

A similar case has been going on for many, many years here, over the domain name nissan.com. Details here.

If you go read his site, the fight isn't quite over. He states that Nissan Motors is attempting to register a Federal Trademark in the computer industry. He is going back to court again to fight this. See http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php (bottom of page)

He's not in business anymore. Therefore he is replying as a person and not as a business. No need for professionalism, unless there is some rule that persons have to communicate like lawyers and businesses.

Anyone with a job is "in business".
Some legal letterhead and a motion to dismiss is all it takes to make the case go away.
In the meantime, this guy could have worked his victimhood positively.
Instead, anyone googling the case will inevitably end up reading his poorly spelt and argued rant.

Off the top of my head, two high profile examples of "Victimhood 101: Doing it right" are nissan.com and Ernie Ball

The guy who owns nissan.com (a computer website started in 1991) has been fighting with Nissan Motors since 1999. Read his story:
http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php

Judging by your comments, you shouldn't be blindly accusing others of misunderstanding trademark law. You might want to look into that a little so you can understand why an auto maker has no business suing someone for having the same mark registered for selling computers.

As for your little spiel about him needing to have it registered, HE DOES as of 1995 apparently. Honestly, you need to at least do a little research if you're going to go around accusing people of not understanding matters.

Second, if Nissan Motors didn't try to get their domain back, they would have a hard time showing that they were diligent in protecting their mark. Actively defending your mark from misuse is a requirement imposed by the trademark laws. If they don't do this in ALL cases, they would have a hard time suing anyone over trademark misuse.

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. It's 100% apparent from even cursory examination that Uzi Nissan is using the name well within his rights. He's selling computers under it, and hasn't sold cars under it SINCE BEFORE NISSAN MOTORS EXISTED (it was called Datsun at the time). An even cursory examination of public records on behalf of Nissan Motors would have been all the "diligence" they needed to see this guy is doing nothing outside of his own legal rights, as the courts eventually (after a long process of apparent incompetence) managed to find. No, this sort of corporate bullying isn't "diligence," it's vexatious and frivolous, not to mention counterproductive for EVERYBODY involved. It's just a shame our legal system is becoming so perverted that this sort of nonsense isn't squashed immediately, rather than worming its way through several years and millions of dollars in pointless legal expenses. If Nissan Motors had simply offered him a decent sum to buy the domain that is clearly rightfully his to begin with, they would have saved themselves a lot of money and bad publicity.

You should see them quadruple their offer then. It's called hardball.

Or they bring out the lawyers and everybody loses. It wouldn't be the first time, either.

I think this link is more informative about the nissan.com issue.

Its always good to see the underdog win.

Well that's very interesting... I had followed this case some time ago, and was not aware of what's been going on lately. It seems there is a great deal more nastiness here than I was originally aware of.

http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php

You should see them quadruple their offer then. It's called hardball.

Or they bring out the lawyers and everybody loses. It wouldn't be the first time, either.

I think this link is more informative about the nissan.com issue.

Not exactly -- he still has it: nissan.com

Though it does sound like he went through hell to keep it, and has to accept restrictions on what he can do with it.

for more

http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php

That guy was using his last name as well. Didn't go so well for him.

Not sure why it's linking to Digest.com, other than trying to drive traffic to one's site, but here's the actual link

http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php

That guy was using his last name as well. Didn't go so well for him.

Since this is his actual name, it's technically not domain squatting. Here's what I'd do. Just ask for a few thousand dollars. It's not enough to piss off the buyer, or to convince him to send lawyers to take the domain by force.

I know someone here in Chapel Hill, NC who realized how slow the South was picking up on the web. He bought several domain names, of local businesses, and asked for $2,000 any time they asked for the domain. The amount was too low to bother with lawyers, so they just paid it. It's slimy, and I wouldn't do such a thing, but in this case, the guy's just being asked for his personal domain.

Here's my favorite domain related suit. This guy's name is Nissan, and so is his business.